On Saturday, for example, Commissioner John King released New York State's mandated teacher - and principal - evaluation system because the United Federation of Teachers and NYC Department of Education couldn't come to an agreement on their own. (N.B.: Mayor Mike Bloomberg came at the last minute and put a stop to the almost-finished negotiations, but that's another story completely.) In his press release, King waxes poetic about students, saying "they've waited too long" for these reports to come out, an empty statement since students probably won't read too many of these. To be fair, he also rebutted Bloomberg by saying we "can't fire our way" towards improving the teaching profession, though one has to wonder how due process comes into play in this evaluation.

Then, he revealed the plan. The presser is here for your perusal, and follows the pattern set across the country: 60% is based on observations - decreased to 55% if we include the 5% for student surveys - and 40% on state and local assessments. Unless they're rated as ineffective in the 40% - making the 40% equal to 100% - and the teacher is automatically rated as ineffective overall.

From that alone, we can reasonably conclude that teacher evaluations aren't about the improvement and professionalization of teaching, but about the politics at play in distant office buildings, back rooms of city halls, and government floors. How "assessment" takes precedent over anything else in the school year is beyond me. While the United Federation of Teachers, NYC Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott, and Bloomberg called the evaluation deal a win for each of their constituents (the jury's still out on this), we can all agree that each of the percentages are so unstable, we can't rely on anything we read in these documents.

Let's look at them bit by bit:

State Growth: 20%

As I've discussed here, the most viable research on this stuff shows that the equations central offices have used to put a number on teachers have largely shown that we actually can't put a real number on what teachers do with assessments. Our classes and the tests they've taken in the last decade vary from year to year in a way that has us comparing apples to oranges to cantaloupes to watermelons. By the time researchers get a stable number, the margin of error gets down to a still-hefty 11%, something we wouldn't accept in our local or national elections but seem to be OK with in our classrooms.

Local Assessments: 20%

School committees will have the choice to go with their own assessments or an assessment chosen by the city (most likely Acuity). Based on my understanding, if they go with the former, they'll have to get their assessments approved by central offices anyways. If they go with the latter, that's two to three more standardized tests they have to take throughout the year. While I prefer the former, I also have to consider that this 20% will look different for every school throughout the city, but let me get to that.

Principal Observations: 60% (maybe)

This is where things get tricky because principals have to look at all the dimensions of the Danielson framework, something I'm not opposed to. As UFT President Michael Mulgrew has said before, the framework has elements that speak to a more holistic evaluation of teachers instead of specific dimensions that must be mastered. What gets tricky is how people perceive those dimensions. Currently, we have Danielson experts helping schools to calibrate, as, from what I've heard, principals usually rated their teachers higher than the experts did.

With this new vision for how to conduct observations, too many administrators are still in the "gotcha" mindset, perilous for any teacher who hasn't done their homework on the framework. Also, a handful of administrators might be tempted to rate teachers lower on the framework and intentionally rate them higher as the year goes by so they can look like they're the ones making the change in the teacher.

Any number of possibilities can occur with the new observations, which was the case with the old observations. This points to a need for a cultural change on how we perceive teacher evaluations. Again.

Student Surveys: 5% (maybe)

This part really brought out the rancor of some people on Twitter. Frankly, it made some of my colleagues look like the job-thirsty authoritarians we can't risk looking like. I questioned openly why some of our colleagues felt like they were above student feedback. First, we should understand that, unlike state and local assessments, student surveys don't do very much for our teacher evaluation scores. Also, putting a number on how students feel about our performance feels odd.

Generally, I've found that students can provide awesome feedback about the types of teachers that work for them and whether teachers actually do a good job or not, even if they can't totally completely elaborate on the details. Yet, giving this feedback a number may alter the way students give feedback or, worse, how the student surveys get administered.

To summarize ...

I see lots of potential for good discussion around teacher evaluation, and how we as teachers can get better feedback to improve our practice. I also don't think putting a number to any of these pieces actually solves anything. Quantifying anything makes that thing susceptible to corruption. I'm not OK with the overemphasis on standardized testing, though it's nice to see how my kids did sometimes. I'd like to have a master principal - a teacher of teachers in the truest sense - support my continual learning as a teacher. I'm also in favor of schools creating assessments if those assessments are better aligned to their curriculum than the city-sponsored ones are.

Overall, I'm suspicious about how these numbers get interpreted, especially when our media would love to grab these numbers and try to tell the world just how "bad" we are in their pages. We ought to consider the fact that putting numbers on anything puts us on a path where principals get tempted to rank their teachers and make assumptions about them without warrant. It picks apart school districts by assuring that top schools don't share their secrets with anyone, and the "bottom" schools get one more label, and perhaps one more reason why they "must" be shut down instead of rehabilitated.

Perhaps if teacher evaluations meant, "We're just getting a general sense of what this teacher is doing" instead of "We're out to get rid of the 'worst' ones by using numbers," then I'd render unto King what's his. I just hope that people who get to see these reports come in with the understanding that teaching is hard, and the successes we have in our classroom, no matter how hard, are innumerable.

Stats and Equations vs. the Team as an Ecosystem

Trying to develop equations for player effectiveness doesn't always work well. ESPN tried to develop its own quarterback equation, but found it wasn't that simple. Each throw a quarterback made or run he scored on needed additional eyes to assure that the numbers accurately reflected his performance. While people may base salaries on individual statistics, the ones that matter most to executives and fans alike are whether the entire team wins.

Looking at teacher evaluation is a difficult prospect, especially since we're often trying to measure the intangibles. Yet we have elements of the profession that we can include in a fair system for all. Characteristics like temperament, persistence and resilience matter more than test scores, especially in schools, because it's here that collaboration, not competitiveness, reigns supreme. Developing schools that see themselves as an ecosystem from teacher all the way through superintendent or chancellor gives us as chance to replicate real success.

]]>http://thejosevilson.com/the-nfl-draft-has-lots-to-teach-administrators-edutopia/feed/212012Bloomberg Is The Systemhttp://thejosevilson.com/bloomberg-is-the-system/
Tue, 26 Jun 2012 02:25:11 +0000http://thejosevilson.com/?p=7991Today, Greg Kristof of the Huffington Post reported that Michael Bloomberg has announced that he wants to have schools call up parents and deliver teacher ...

Today, Greg Kristof of the Huffington Post reported that Michael Bloomberg has announced that he wants to have schools call up parents and deliver teacher evaluations directly to parents. This comes on the heels of the passing of a bill that clearly delineates guidelines for parent-school interaction when it comes to teacher evaluations. Michael Bloomberg, in his usual pomp, went on the radio to reaffirm his disappointment in the bill and the compromises made to pass it. A quote:

"Let me tell you what we're going to do," Bloomberg said on the WOR radio show. "We are going to have our schools call every single parent. We're talking about fourth to eighth grade... We will tell you, you are entitled to this information and if you want it say yes right now and we will send it to you."

Let's be perfectly clear here. First, Bloomberg's intentions have been transparent in that he prefers to turn public schools into parts of a huge corporate conglomerate, an idea he continues to reaffirm every time he speaks about education. The general public understands this, and even the media reporting on his efforts have taken a more critical tone about his record. Much of that has to do with the pressure from progressive groups within and outside the city, but some of it also has to do with the general public getting a decade's worth of evidence and seeing more turmoil than ever before.

As the old axiom goes: the emperor continues to shed his clothes.

Second, we already have enough information on some of the facets of teacher evaluations to know that we have little reason to trust it until it becomes more sophisticated and maturates over time. If we know that the 40% of the teacher evaluation is dedicated to state exams until this piece is considered substandard then it's 100%, we know we have a long way to go before this matter is settled.

Most importantly, Michael Bloomberg's attitude towards parents has rarely demonstrated openness. We have plenty of examples of times when a main liaison would run away from parents demanding answers, parents' mics getting shut down at hearings, and layers of bureaucracy added to our infrastructure to ensure confusion on the part of parents less informed about what's happening in the school system. Our central offices can print out all the infographics and flyers they want, but in no way will that replace the general tenor of Bloomberg's rhetoric to parents.

I don't have much of a problem with parents knowing about my teaching so long as the right information gets out and doesn't put me in a defensive position. What I do have a problem with is Bloomberg's inference that he wants parents and teachers to have a distrust for each other. This call can make places where this relationship is already tenuous just downright hostile. This doesn't a good school make. If anything, it perpetuates the idea that schools stand alone from the surrounding community, and, as an institution, is not subject to substantive participation.

Making robo-calls to parents and delivering teacher evaluations to parents may backfire. Then, his next effort commences. When you're so well-resourced and such a position of power, you have all the time in the world to bully the people serving the million plus children of the city. After hearing about this news, and reflecting on the massive sweeping changes we've had in this country, I realized that Bloomberg, after failing at public education, can blame it on the system, one that existed before him.

Yet, because of all the changes and the resources he's used to keep his reforms going, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is in fact the system. He'll have to go on record for all of this, too.

]]>7991You Have No Idea What To Count, So Shut Uphttp://thejosevilson.com/you-have-no-idea-what-to-count-so-shut-up/
http://thejosevilson.com/you-have-no-idea-what-to-count-so-shut-up/#commentsMon, 02 Jan 2012 03:44:26 +0000http://thejosevilson.com/?p=4023Ira Socol, the unabashed scholar he is, dropped my first favorite quote of 2012 in his meme on December 30th: Things I don’t want to ...

]]>
Ira Socol, the unabashed scholar he is, dropped my first favorite quote of 2012 in his meme on December 30th:

Things I don't want to hear in 2012: (3) "Accountability" - you have no idea what to count, so shut up.

Gospel. I almost fell on my face laughing. How did he jump in my skull and pull that thought out? After the recent news that the UFT (yes, my union) and the NYC Department of Education (yes, my employer) came to an impasse about how teachers ought to be evaluated, I could only think of the tense conversations that happened in that room.

DOE Rep: If you read the Danielson framework carefully, you'll see right there that it says you can fire teachers at will.UFT Rep: No, it doesn't.DOE Rep: I'm telling you, if you read the appendices and the fine print, she says so unequivocally.UFT Rep: No she doesn't.DOE Rep: But we want to fire teachers.UFT Rep: No.DOE Rep: Please?UFT Rep: No.DOE Rep: Ummm ... you really don't understand. There were ... umm ... a few dimensions she just added ...UFT Rep: Where?DOE Rep: Umm ... they're right ... there. It says it. Why are you so difficult?UFT Rep: I can read.DOE Rep: You saying I can't read? I'm insulted.UFT Rep: Oh ok.DOE Rep: So ... when can we start firing teachers?UFT Rep: Nope.DOE Rep: Nope is not a good time. Nope isn't even a time. What are you talking about?UFT Rep: Not happening.DOE Rep: Aww man. Well, we're telling the media.UFT Rep: #shankershrug

All this over a cool $60 million in funds that probably won't go straight to the schools, but will be in "deliverable goods" like third party vendors and the like. They'll eventually swim right through the schools, the city will have to foot the bill when the funds run out, and then they'll be back to square one. $60 mil is a good spot of cash for any public school system, but if there is a school system that won't do the money justice, it's ours. Instead of investing in experienced teachers and administrators, we invest it in people we may or may not see a few times a year.

Naturally, some of my detractors might say that if I don't believe in the DOE proposal for evaluating teachers, then I believe in the status quo. Well ... not exactly. Sherman Dorn did a good job of addressing the issue of status quo a while back, but here's something else: I do believe in teacher evaluation. However, if we're going to do it, it'll be under some stringent conditions, ones that might *ahem* revolutionize the school system as we know it.

Evaluators need to have been in the classroom for five years or longer i.e. become a good teacher.

Teachers ought to see and understand the nuances under which they're evaluated.

People should be taught the difference between tenure and due process, the latter which should be afforded to all teachers.

Administrators should assure that the systems created help everyone in the system grow as professionals, not just make them punitive measures.

That's only my off-the-cuff thoughts on teacher evaluation. Based on the Danielson model, it's harder to "count" things or make them into checklists for administrators to see, but people have done it already anyways. In the meantime, the idea of mutual "counting" never happens here. It happens to the people at the school level (generally), but, for the person who controls it all, there is no accountability. No slap on the wrist. No expose in Newsweek or ABC Nightline. If a feeling of disappointment and a grimace are somehow the means for accountability, then we're very far from an education system for all.

If it's about $60 million, we ought to just give it back. Outside of that money, we don't even know what to count.

Jose, who will savor as much writing as he can do for the next few days ...continue reading

]]>http://thejosevilson.com/you-have-no-idea-what-to-count-so-shut-up/feed/14023Special Guests on Pardon the Interruption: Jose Vilson and John Holland! [Future of Teaching]http://thejosevilson.com/special-guests-on-pardon-the-interruption-jose-vilson-and-john-holland/
Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:13:16 +0000http://thejosevilson.com/?p=3616Wilbon: I’m Michael Wilbon. Kornheiser: And I’m Tony Kornheiser, and welcome to the PTI program. We have a special edition of OddsMakers today because we’re ...

Wilbon: I'm Michael Wilbon.Kornheiser: And I'm Tony Kornheiser, and welcome to the PTI program. We have a special edition of OddsMakers today because we're old and tired.Wilbon: Maybe you're old, but I'm tired from the EXCITEMENT of this year's NBA Finals.K: I was tired from my first name being used all night last night at the Tony's.W: Can we welcome our guests already?K: With us, we have two teacher leaders with a knack for differing and vociferous opinions. Know anybody like that, Wilbon?W: HA! No! But, we welcome to the program Jose Vilson from YOUR town of New Yawk, and John Holland from beautiful Virginia. Welcome to the program gentlemen!JV: Glad to be here.K: I hear that you'd like to do our next segment on education. Give us a bit about what you're going to talk about.

JM: When I think about the story of teaching 2030 as it is becoming, I know that it is the story of a new generation of teachers. Many of these teachers are passionate and even more committed to creating a more equitable society than the group of teachers I started with 15 years ago. Recently a group of young teacher leaders in Denver took on the task of describing what they believe about being evaluated fairly and with the intention of making education better for students. Their report titled, Making Teacher Evaluation Work for Students: Voices from the Classroom is a challenging perspective on what it means to evaluate with the intention of making teaching better for students. As I read the report I started thinking of one of Vilson's favorite ESPN segments, Odds Makers. The idea of percentages in public education policy has a kind of arm chair quarterback feel so I thought, why not try it here.

K: Alright, well I'm gonna go sip on a pina colada in the meantime. Wilbon, can you let go of this program for even a split second?W: Yeah, because these guys seem alright, unlike that guy Dan LeBatard!

Part of me sees the parallels with giving Educators 4 Excellence (E4E) and Sarah Palin too much credit. They've both become popular for their views, and have the backing of conspicuous and inconspicuous organizations alike, both steering their "constituents" in the wrong direction. Case in point, NYC Educator pointed me in the direction of a Gotham Schools post about E4E's recommendations for teacher evaluations. Lots of people have jumped on that boat, and everyone's trying to find the best way to tackle this problem.

Of course, it behooves E4E, who position themselves as the taste-makers for what real NYC teachers (i.e. - compliant) believe about their own evaluations. Their recommendations come in the form of percentages:

I have a lot of problems with these, and so I posted this in their comment box:

Before I get to reading any other comments, here's something I think about:

No matter who this paper is coming from (though it does matter), isn't placing the value of what a teacher does in a classroom on a test absolutely disastrous? Especially in light of the work of Aaron Pallas, Linda Darling-Hammond, et. al.? The obsession with testing will only push teachers to teach to a test, no matter what the test is, rather than to a standard or to a goal. And unfortunately, tests can't measure teacher effectiveness very well, as we've seen time and again with study after study.

Based on my own formal and informal studies, the opinions of students actually matters more (when asked the proper questions) than 10%. Also, I'm leery about any "independent observer" coming in to observe teaching unless they have serious credentials and someone has vetted them as well. As I grow older in this system, I've become more suspicious of this word "independence" when funding sources are tied to certain agendas.

I also believe peer "visitation" (different from observation) is relevant, and a much better way to offer professional development than our one-day drop-ins. As for administrator observations, this paper also assumes that every administrator is actually qualified to teach teachers and help them progress as teachers. Thus, if we're talking day-to-day business, then that means an administrator better know that Do Nows and Lessons don't always take up 5 and 15 minutes respectively.

I get parts of this evaluation system, and I know where many of them come from, but it makes me call into question how much research was done and who commissioned this policy team to create this policy. Thanks for reporting on this, Gotham. I'm just incredulous that on this panel, Leo Casey will be seen as the pariah in the face of three individuals who align themselves with Bloomberg's policies.

I rarely reply to E4E posts except when it concerns a movement I'm a part of, but, because I knew E4E was easy to attack and their recommendations wouldn't be, I commented. Just like whenever Sarah Palin spouts something ridiculous.